this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
183 points (92.2% liked)

Religious Cringe

826 readers
1 users here now

About

This is the official Lemmy for the r/ReligiousCringe***** subreddit. This is a community about poking fun at the religious fundamentalist's who take their religion a little bit too far. Here you will find religious content that is so outrageous and so cringeworthy that even someone who is mildly religious will cringe.

Rules

  1. All posts must contain religious cringe. All posts must be made from a religious person or must be showcasing some kind of religious bigotry. The only exception to this is rule 2

  2. Material about religious bigots made by non-bigots is only allowed from Friday-Sunday EST. In an effort to keep this community on the topic of religious cringe and bigotry we have decide to limit stuff like atheist memes to only the weekends.

  3. No direct links to religious cringe. To prevent religious bigots from getting our clicks and views directs links to religious cringe are not allowed. If you must a post a screenshot of the site or use archive.ph. If it is a YouTube video please use a YouTube frontend like Piped or Invidious

  4. No Proselytizing. Proselytizing is defined as trying to convert someone to a particular religion or certain world view. Doing so will get you banned.

  5. Spammers and Trolls will be instantly banned. No exceptions.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Other Similar Communities

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 64 points 10 months ago (1 children)

With a few tweaks, that book is ready for Texas and Florida.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Just find and replace the name "Allah" with "God" and nobody would notice.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 10 months ago

Feels the author knew he was writing bullshit and tried to actually sneak the truth in, in a way that's undetectable to the extremists vetting the thing.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago

Oh, look; it's more conflating of evolution with abiogenesis, alongside complete shortsightedness about the scales of space and time involved.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well Britain did a little colonizing in that area of the world.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

I find that hard to believe. The british are nice people who respect other nations and have never stolen a chunk of ireland with murdering.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Because it’s fake.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (2 children)

My favorite thing about the "even humans can't make life" argument is that when you point out that we have actually made the kind of rudimentary precursors to life in laboratories, they just say "see? It needs an intelligent mind to make it!"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

And my least favourite thing about it is it assumes that somehow science is finished and therefore capable of everything possible.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh? I've seen several similar claims in media that always, on closer look, ended up as some combination of already organic/live parts with synthetic parts. Did we ever managed to make somehing "alive" strictly from something synthetic/dead?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I am talking about the Miller-Urey experiment. They didn't create life, but in the words of Forrest Valkai, we have steps 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 100 for abiogenesis. Creationists right now like to say "haha, you don't have step 3!" But when we do reach step 3, they'll still be able to point to 6, 7, 8, 9, and so on. And when we do reach all those steps, creationists will pivot, and say "haha! You admit that life was intelligently designed!" As if the laboratory conditions that scientists use aren't simulating the mineral and nutrient rich conditions of the pre-life oceans, and as if there weren't billions of cubic meters of water for it to randomly happen in over hundreds of millions of years

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

I'm not familiar with experiment and I certainly don't subscribe to any creationist logic. But until science can create life from death (a proof that we understand it well enough) we can't really claim much about it or eliminate intelligent desing, however unprobable it seemed. And as far as I know, currently there isn't even consensus on definition of life.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are we just ignoring that this is an obvious Photoshop?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The chapter is titled "evolution" and the fact that we're on figure 24.16 leads me to believe there are at least fifteen other images in this chapter. If that's the case, it seems unlikely this section would be so far back in the chapter.

The section above literally talks about the results of natural selection on speciation.

When comparing content between the two sections, the top had lots of scientific vocabulary and creates valid points. The below section has multiple misspelled words and bad grammar. Tonally, very different.

Most obviously, the line spacing in this section is about half what it is in the above section.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Idk... In Turkey natural selection and speciation are in the curriculum but as far as I can tell it's forbidden to mention evolution. Doesn't seem like a large jump of logic to include a "btw evolution is wrong" section.

Also the line spacing on the right page seems closer to the bottom section.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I like that apricots and figs are clearly appreciated as higher forms of life than starfish and hawks. 

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's not very clear how loins fit in that list, but then I'm not an evolutionary scientist.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

It reads like they switched to the grocery list at some point, and I have to say it’s sounding rather tasty.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

I don't think the book author is, either...

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago

Why is this Pakistani textbook printed in English?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

This was hard to read for many reasons, including the run-on sentences and poor grammar. My favorite parts, however, were probably these excerpts:

  • "cannot be the result of chance vents"
  • "Primal soup"
  • "Loins"
[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

Texas called, and wants their book back

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Loins

Nice piece of comedy in this sea of fucking idiocy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Florida is leaking

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

A biology text book that doesn’t know about DNA or RNA? What jest!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

My favorite part is that the first paragraph presents an example of evolution, and then the second paragraph said "evolution is bullshit." They probably took a preexisting evolution-believing textbook and squeezed in a paragraph here and there, but they can't keep the book self-consistent.

A classic case of proof by contradiction.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

In English, why that's cultural appropriation sonny

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

humans can't reproduce something, must be fake